Google agrees to pay $700M and make app store changes, like offering an alternative billing system, to settle a 2021 antitrust lawsuit by 36 US states and DC
Agreement with coalition of states resolves antitrust litigation related to app store — Google parent Alphabet agreed …
Wall Street JournalBen Glickman
Context & Ripple Effects
This resolution follows Google’s earlier $90M fund for smaller US Play Store developers, shifting the focus from retrospective developer compensation to the rules governing how Android app transactions can be handled.
A tentative state-led Play Store class-action settlement had already signaled that a negotiated outcome was taking shape. The reported payout and billing changes make the settlement consequential beyond the cash payment because they alter a core point of platform control.
First-order effects
Google must pay $700M and implement app-store changes, including an alternative billing option, resolving the 2021 case brought by 36 states and Washington, DC.
Alternative billing gives developers a new route around Google-controlled payment processing, increasing pressure on the economics and disclosure design of in-app purchases.
Other mobile platform operators and app-distribution intermediaries face a clearer example of state antitrust enforcement targeting billing restrictions, strengthening developers’ leverage in future disputes.
Third-order effects
The settlement points toward app-store competition being governed increasingly through enforceable conduct commitments, not solely damages awards—a shift that could constrain gatekeeper control over monetization if comparable cases persist.
Whether alternative billing materially changes market power will depend on the practical terms Google implements, including the costs and user experience attached to that option.
The trend: App-store antitrust enforcement is moving from challenges to platform fees toward remedies that seek to open the payment layer controlled by mobile gatekeepers.
The settlement endorses Google's 30% monopoly rent imposition, by replacing the anticompetitive Google Play Billing tie with a new anticompetitive Google-imposed “user choice billing” tie which adds a useless 26% Google Tax for payments they don't process.
Here is a very high level description of six key areas of commitments. I STRONGLY URGE you not to take these as actual commitments. Remember this is Google, please assume they've already locked in how to avoid welfare loss to developers and consumers from these terms. /6 [image]
Bam, state AGs vs Google settlement in app store antitrust case just posted to court docket. Note: states (Utah et al) had settled but couldn't post terms until after Epic vs Google trial in the same matter. That happened last week with jury ruling for Epic against Google. /1 [im…
Very significant with a view to Epic Games v. Google: Google paid $700M (more important than the app store changes that Epic determined fell far short of what's useful) to settle a case that 36 US states and D.C. brought and which would have gone to trial with Epic's case. 🧵1/3
Big news! Google has announced the details of its settlement with the more than 30 U.S. states that filed a class action lawsuit over Google Play. Google says it will: 1) Be “further simplifying the sideloading process and updating the language that informs users about these... […
Here's how Google will simplify sideloading in Android. As part of a proposed class action lawsuit settlement, Google said it will revise the default sideloading flow in Android. Here's exactly what they're changing: 1) The pop-up with the text “For your security, your phone... […
The States' earlier filings made a strong case for $10.5 billion in damages, in line with Google's unjustly collected 30% fees. I think they'd have gotten it if they'd stayed in the fight a few weeks longer to the overwhelming victory in court. An unfortunate outcome.
The State Attorneys General settlement is an injustice to all Android users and developers. It endorses Google's misleading and anticompetitive scare screens, which Google intentionally designed to disadvantage competing stores and direct downloads.
This is a scandal. Not only was the fine more than an order of magnitude off what it should've been (recall RI AG won $250m settlement with G he didn't divide w/anyone in 2012 by not blinking), it dropped in the middle of the US v G trial as if it were designed to make DOJ &...